As someone who could've rightly been called an extremist in the not so distant past, I wonder if this rule will be enforced on the basis of the, roughly, prevailing ideological leaning of the forum. This change was proposed based on the statements of a right wing ideologue, and I'm curious as to whether the same criteria would apply to someone from a far left group.

Just to be clear I don't really have a dog in this fight. My days of political activity are past. It's just something you might want to think about.

As someone who could've rightly been called an extremist in the not so distant past, I wonder if this rule will be enforced on the basis of the, roughly, prevailing ideological leaning of the forum. This change was proposed based on the statements of a right wing ideologue, and I'm curious as to whether the same criteria would apply to someone from a far left group.

Just to be clear I don't really have a dog in this fight. My days of political activity are past. It's just something you might want to think about.

Would "violent extremist ideologies" be a better approach, do you think? Also, note that the wording of the addition gives staff considerable leeway in regards to enforcement. For instance, if somebody comes along ranting about how P. Diddy is the absolute pinnacle of human righteousness and achievement, and will brook no contrary opinions or arguments, the rule doesn't require that the staff jump in with the ban hammer.

As someone who could've rightly been called an extremist in the not so distant past, I wonder if this rule will be enforced on the basis of the, roughly, prevailing ideological leaning of the forum. This change was proposed based on the statements of a right wing ideologue, and I'm curious as to whether the same criteria would apply to someone from a far left group.

Just to be clear I don't really have a dog in this fight. My days of political activity are past. It's just something you might want to think about.

Serious question. What would a left wing extremist look like?

I suspect look and behave exactly the same as a right wing extremist.

I can think of two groups off the top of my head. The first would be the ALF, advocating or at least being sympathetic to violence in helping animals. The second would be the Spartacists, who have been known to hand out pamphlets suporting North Korea's "right" to have and use nuclear weapons. There are others I'm more familiar with on a person level, and although they wouldn't be as vocal or explicit in their choice of words I'd know what they were getting at from experience.

As someone who could've rightly been called an extremist in the not so distant past, I wonder if this rule will be enforced on the basis of the, roughly, prevailing ideological leaning of the forum. This change was proposed based on the statements of a right wing ideologue, and I'm curious as to whether the same criteria would apply to someone from a far left group.

Just to be clear I don't really have a dog in this fight. My days of political activity are past. It's just something you might want to think about.

Would "violent extremist ideologies" be a better approach, do you think? Also, note that the wording of the addition gives staff considerable leeway in regards to enforcement. For instance, if somebody comes along ranting about how P. Diddy is the absolute pinnacle of human righteousness and achievement, and will brook no contrary opinions or arguments, the rule doesn't require that the staff jump in with the ban hammer.

Perhaps it would. A rule like this might be best left vague now that I've thought about it some more though. If violence is the criteria I'm not sure our former Nazi representative would've been eligible for the boot though.

As someone who could've rightly been called an extremist in the not so distant past, I wonder if this rule will be enforced on the basis of the, roughly, prevailing ideological leaning of the forum. This change was proposed based on the statements of a right wing ideologue, and I'm curious as to whether the same criteria would apply to someone from a far left group.

Just to be clear I don't really have a dog in this fight. My days of political activity are past. It's just something you might want to think about.

Would "violent extremist ideologies" be a better approach, do you think? Also, note that the wording of the addition gives staff considerable leeway in regards to enforcement. For instance, if somebody comes along ranting about how P. Diddy is the absolute pinnacle of human righteousness and achievement, and will brook no contrary opinions or arguments, the rule doesn't require that the staff jump in with the ban hammer.

Perhaps it would. A rule like this might be best left vague now that I've thought about it some more though. If violence is the criteria I'm not sure our former Nazi representative would've been eligible for the boot though.

Breatharian wasn't banned for being a violent Nazi, he was banned for making a racist comment:Topic: Favorite '90s Song(s)